Very Interesting

This evening, Laura and I had a LONG and AWESOME talk about all things sociological. In this discussion, we talked about September 11 and the reasons why America was attacked (and no, it's not just because they "hate our freedoms"...in fact, that's one of the lowest reasons on the totem pole). Laura brought up the essay written by Timothy McVeigh and suggested I read it.

Here is the link..... http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcaug98.htm

I did in fact read it. Just now. And I have to say, I am very intrigued by what he had to say. Of course, the thoughts one has can be right on, but the execution (bad choice of word, but can't think of another that will do) of the thoughts can outweigh the point behind the action.

Case in point...September 11. The fact that our country was bombed shocked the nation so much that instead of stopping and asking the question "Why?", we simply took cover and got irate. Then we were spoon fed the "reasons" why we were attacked and ate them up with no questioning.

Timothy McVeigh's points are scary in their accuracy. Could he have maybe changed more minds or been listened to as a rational human if he had, say, written the essay for a journal of sociology? Or sent it in to Time or Newsweek? Probably. Because when the bomb went off in Oklahoma City, people weren't looking for the reason why he did it...they were looking for his blood. His actions shut off any communication that may have happened if his actions would have been less violent.

Same situation with 9-11. If, instead of setting planes into the Trade Centers, there was a televised, national talk given, maybe people would understand.

But then again, maybe not. People are very comfortable with the things they own and the lives they lead, most of them insulated from having to see children working in maquiliadoras to make their clothes or the teenagers locked away in Honduras making our furniture. All we know is that Wal-Mart has the best prices in the land, and we will ignore all the hometown business it ran into the ground or where it got its products from. Those who can afford to be insulated usually enjoy staying that way, and sometimes it takes flying planes into buildings to get people's attention.

The problem is the attention you get.

There can't be a conversation about Osama Bin Laden or al-Queda or the Towers without hyper emotion entering the ring. Of course there is nothing wrong with people being emotional about this whole situation, but it proves to make good conversation next to impossible.

It's very similar to getting into a religious discussion. The person who is arguing for some stance can always pull out, "Well, it's my faith" and there is no counter-argument to that. There is no way to argue faith because faith is something that isn't seen, isn't proven, isn't tangible, but something believed in. That removes it from the realm of scientific or sociological discussion. It's also something that is surrounded by high emotions for many.

So what is the point to all this rambling? There is nothing Timothy McVeigh could say without most people automatically dismissing it because he was a murderer and crazy. Everything he thought can be easily discounted and shrugged off, and the sad part is, he makes some really good points.

If only he had gone on Oprah instead of in that parking garage...